Author Topic: Question for Quakeroats  (Read 3068 times)

Drama Queen

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • "Silence is argument carried on by other means''
Question for Quakeroats
« on: February 27, 2009, 05:44:55 PM »

QuakerOats

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 13621
  • bring amberlamps!!!
Re: Question for Quakeroats
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2009, 05:45:45 PM »
doesn't work for me, who is it?

Drama Queen

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • "Silence is argument carried on by other means''
Re: Question for Quakeroats
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2009, 05:48:12 PM »
doesn't work for me, who is it?
Bodybuilder Busted in Internet Chat Sting
By Brad Belote

Story Updated: Feb 27, 2009

Stone County deputies arrested a St. Louis-area bodybuilder for allegedly exposing himself to an undercover deputy in an Internet chatroom.

Michael Anthony Barbarotta faces charges of enticement of a child and sexual misconduct involving a child under the age of 14.

According to a press release, a Stone County deputy posing as an underage girl met Barbartotta in an Internet chat room in October 2008. The release says Barbarotta used his web cam on four occasions, where at least on 2 of those occasions his exposed himself to the deputy.

http://www.usamuscle.com/bodybuilders/detail.asp?CompetitorID=6281

QuakerOats

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 13621
  • bring amberlamps!!!
Re: Question for Quakeroats
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2009, 05:49:08 PM »
Bodybuilder Busted in Internet Chat Sting
By Brad Belote

Story Updated: Feb 27, 2009

Stone County deputies arrested a St. Louis-area bodybuilder for allegedly exposing himself to an undercover deputy in an Internet chatroom.

Michael Anthony Barbarotta faces charges of enticement of a child and sexual misconduct involving a child under the age of 14.

According to a press release, a Stone County deputy posing as an underage girl met Barbartotta in an Internet chat room in October 2008. The release says Barbarotta used his web cam on four occasions, where at least on 2 of those occasions his exposed himself to the deputy.

http://www.usamuscle.com/bodybuilders/detail.asp?CompetitorID=6281
i'm not going to comment but remember that in this country a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Drama Queen

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • "Silence is argument carried on by other means''
Re: Question for Quakeroats
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2009, 05:49:56 PM »
i'm not going to comment but remember that in this country a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Do you know him or not ?

Mr. Magoo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9808
  • THE most mistaken identity on getbig
Re: Question for Quakeroats
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2009, 05:54:38 PM »
Bodybuilder Busted in Internet Chat Sting
By Brad Belote

Story Updated: Feb 27, 2009

Stone County deputies arrested a St. Louis-area bodybuilder for allegedly exposing himself to an undercover deputy in an Internet chatroom.

Michael Anthony Barbarotta faces charges of enticement of a child and sexual misconduct involving a child under the age of 14.

According to a press release, a Stone County deputy posing as an underage girl met Barbartotta in an Internet chat room in October 2008. The release says Barbarotta used his web cam on four occasions, where at least on 2 of those occasions his exposed himself to the deputy.

http://www.usamuscle.com/bodybuilders/detail.asp?CompetitorID=6281

So a deputy pretends to be a little girl and begs a bodybuilder to show his privates to him over an internet chatroom. And he's charged with exposing himself to a child under the age of 14 when there wasn't a child in the first place? What if the bodybuilder knew the girl was an older guy, wouldn't that count as consent on both parties and the case would have to be dropped. I just don't see why a deputy approaches this guy, takes on a fake ID, intices him to show himself, and it's all perfectly legal on the cops behalf. THe deputy was the one that approached the bodybuilder, not the other way around. I dont understand this, if theres no child in the case, how can he be charged with misconduct involving a child? just because the deputy told him he was a little girl? So if the deputy told him that he was an animal, would the bodybuilder be charged with beastility? makes about as much sense to me...

QuakerOats

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 13621
  • bring amberlamps!!!
Re: Question for Quakeroats
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2009, 05:55:35 PM »
So a deputy pretends to be a little girl and begs a bodybuilder to show his privates to him over an internet chatroom. And he's charged with exposing himself to a child under the age of 14 when there wasn't a child in the first place? What if the bodybuilder knew the girl was an older guy, wouldn't that count as consent on both parties and the case would have to be dropped. I just don't see why a deputy approaches this guy, takes on a fake ID, intices him to show himself, and it's all perfectly legal on the cops behalf. THe deputy was the one that approached the bodybuilder, not the other way around. I dont understand this, if theres no child in the case, how can he be charged with misconduct involving a child? just because the deputy told him he was a little girl? So if the deputy told him that he was an animal, would the bodybuilder be charged with beastility? makes about as much sense to me...
it's a weird situation on both ends.

QuakerOats

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 13621
  • bring amberlamps!!!
Re: Question for Quakeroats
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2009, 05:59:05 PM »
Do you know him or not ?
yes i do know him and he's a good guy with a family so it's best to let this rest and let him and his family deal with this, i'm sure it's not easy on them.

the anabolic mon

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 317
Re: Question for Quakeroats
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2009, 06:02:57 PM »
yes i do know him and he's a good guy with a family so it's best to let this rest and let him and his family deal with this, i'm sure it's not easy on them.

Fuck this scumbag and his family. He gets what he deserves.

WillGrant

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21058
  • Ron is Watching
Re: Question for Quakeroats
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2009, 06:10:59 PM »
So a deputy pretends to be a little girl and begs a bodybuilder to show his privates to him over an internet chatroom. And he's charged with exposing himself to a child under the age of 14 when there wasn't a child in the first place? What if the bodybuilder knew the girl was an older guy, wouldn't that count as consent on both parties and the case would have to be dropped. I just don't see why a deputy approaches this guy, takes on a fake ID, intices him to show himself, and it's all perfectly legal on the cops behalf. THe deputy was the one that approached the bodybuilder, not the other way around. I dont understand this, if theres no child in the case, how can he be charged with misconduct involving a child? just because the deputy told him he was a little girl? So if the deputy told him that he was an animal, would the bodybuilder be charged with beastility? makes about as much sense to me...
Isnt that entrapment?  ???

TrueGrit

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15192
  • Big dude...all the way big dude.
Re: Question for Quakeroats
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2009, 06:14:19 PM »
I'll sleep better knowing this guy is caught. Maybe they can go out and arrest some hookers and Johns to make the crime solving statistics look even better.
O

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12405
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Question for Quakeroats
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2009, 06:20:10 PM »
yes i do know him and he's a good guy with a family so it's best to let this rest and let him and his family deal with this, i'm sure it's not easy on them.
hahaha

Fat Dave's childhood buddy got busted trying to show his wang to little girls.  :D
!